Truth in
Translation, Accuracy and Bias in
English Translations of the New Testament,
by Jason David BeDuhn, University Press of America, Lanham,
Maryland, 2003.
Available at www.amazon.com

About the Author
Jason David BeDuhn is an associate professor of
religious studies at Northern Arizona University, in
Flagstaff. He holds a B.A. in Religious studies from the
University of Illinois, Urbana, and M.T.S. in New Testament
and Christian Origins from Harvard Divinity School, and a
Ph.D. in the Comparative Study of Religions from Indiana
University, Bloomington. He is the author of many articles in
the areas of Biblical Studies and Manichaean Studies, and of
the book, The Manichaean Body: In Discipline and
Ritual (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press,
2000), winner of the "Best First Book" prize from the
American Academy of Religion.

Quoted from Truth in Translation:
Introduction Thousands of biblical researchers in America
have [the three necessary credentials to do Bible
translation. That is, they have the ability to accurately
evaluate: (1) linguistic content, (2) literary context, and
(3) historical and cultural environment as the basis for
valid assessment of Bible translation.] And I am one of them.
That is why I feel somewhat justified in writing this book.
But just as importantly, I have an attitude that puts me at a
distinct advantage to write a book such as this. I am a
committed historian dedicated to discovering what Christians
said and did two thousand years ago. . . . If you are looking
for my bias, I guess you could say that I have a bias in
favor of historical truth, the accurate reconstruction and
comprehension of the past.

Synopsis:Truth in Translation evaluates the subject
of bias in English New Testament translations. After defining New
Testament translation bias, the author uses selected passages
from nine well-known English versions as examples of translation
bias.

The source of translation bias:
No two languages are identical in structure
(grammar) or vocabulary. This is equally true between New
Testament Greek and modern English. Therefore, every translation
must make some accommodation to the differences between two
languages. In the case of the New Testament, the translation is
biased if those accommodations are used to promote a particular
doctrinal viewpoint. For example, the Greek used in the original
New Testament manuscripts did not use lower case letters, whereas
English uses both upper and lower case letters. The original
manuscripts (autographs) therefore did not make a distinction
between "God" and "god," or between "Spirit" and "spirit." A
translation may[*] introduce a
theological bias in its use of capitalized English words since
the use (or absence) of a capital letter may be the difference
between an inanimate object and a person. Bias can also be
introduced when difficult Greek sentences are interpreted for the
English reader or when English words are added which are not
found in the Greek text.

[*]Or, "must"
since capitalization of proper nouns cannot be avoided.

Overall evaluation:Truth in Translation is an excellent book.
It is well worth reading. BeDuhn has done an outstanding job of
explaining and illustrating translation bias in the New
Testament.

However, this book will certainly polarize ones
of Jehovah's Witnesses and evangelical Christians. BeDuhn makes a
number of favorable comments regarding the New World
Translation's handling of specific verses in contrast to the
same verses in Bibles favored by evangelical Protestants. As a
result, evangelical Protestants will (often, without merit) be
suspicious of Truth in Translation.

The Watch Tower Society will want to selectively
quote BeDuhn's book because he compliments portions of the New
World Translation. On the other hand, considering what
Truth in Translation also says about the New World
Translation in areas of its weakness, the Watch Tower Society
will need to proceed cautiously when quoting Truth in
Translation. BeDuhn devoted an entire appendix (The Use of
"Jehovah") to the 237 occurrences of "Jehovah" in the New
World Translation Greek Scriptures (New Testament). In that
appendix he essentially denies the most prominent feature of the
New World Translation's Greek Scriptures when he disputes
the appropriateness of using Jehovah in the New Testament. We
will consider that subject in the Appendix comments.

In spite of my high praise for Truth in
Translation, I do not agree with everything BeDuhn says. He
also stumbles on his own bias in several places. I will comment
on that where it is appropriate. I think it is fair to say this.
On a first level, the translation principles BeDuhn describes are
objective and are of extreme value. His academic
qualifications demand that he be taken seriously. All of us from
any theological persuasion need to carefully consider what he has
to say regarding these translation principles.

On a second level, BeDuhn chooses a number of
passages to use as illustrations. Until I read the last chapter
in which he explains his purpose for that choice,[*] I
was becoming increasingly uncomfortable that he selected the
passages in order to defend his personal view of Jesus and the
Spirit (spirit). We need to pay careful attention to what the
author says on this second level because he can teach us a great
deal. This is where the theoretical meets the everyday
application in the English New Testament translation we use.
Nonetheless, because this second level involves considerably more
subjective material, all of us as readers have the
responsibility of cautiously weighing his comments before
reaching our final conclusion.

[*] In Chapter 13, BeDuhn says, "I
could only consider a small number of samples in this book.
Another set of samples might yield some different
configurations of results. But the selection of passages has
not been arbitrary. It has been driven mostly by an idea of
where one is most likely to find bias, namely, those passages
which are frequently cited as having great theological
importance, the verses that are claimed as key foundations for
the commitments of the belief held by the very people making
the translations. Choosing precisely those passages where
theology has most at stake might seem deliberately provocative
and controversial. But that is exactly where bias is most
likely to interfere with translation. Biblical passages that
make statements about the nature and character of Jesus or the
Holy Spirit are much more likely to have beliefs read into them
than are passages that mention what Jesus and his disciples had
for lunch." (p. 165)

Finally, there is a third level in which BeDuhn
is merely reflecting his own belief. As a reader, we are free to
accept, modify or reject his point of view, but there is still
much he can teach each of us in this final area also.

May I suggest that Truth in Translation
is a superb book. If both opponents and proponents of the New
World Translation would apply the author's principles to
their own translation selection, we would all reap the benefit of
reading Bibles which better reflect the intended message of the
New Testament authors.

Our website (www.tetragrammaton.org)
is devoted to a study of the presence (or absence) of the
Tetragrammaton[*] in the New
Testament autographs. As such, our site is not a forum for
discussing theology or even Bible translations. However, it does
discuss the New World Translation Greek Scriptures (New
Testament) at great length because of the Watch Tower Society's
claim that the Tetragrammaton was used in the New Testament
autographs. Based on this claim, the New World Translation
is their vehicle for introducing Jehovah into the Greek
Scriptures 237 times. For that reason, we have been drawn into
this debate on New Testament translation bias because many of
BeDuhn's examples are taken from the New World
Translation.

[*]The
Tetragrammaton is the four letter Hebrew word
(יהוה) designating the divine name.
Transliterated into English letters, it is written YHWH.
Jehovah is a translation of יהוה and
Yahweh (among other possibilities) is a common English
transliteration.

From Truth in Translation's introduction: People are quick to charge inaccuracy and bias in
someone else's Bible. On what basis do they make such charges?
Charges of inaccuracy and bias are based upon the fact that a
translation has deviated from some norm of what the translation
should be. So what is the norm? It seems that for many the norm
is the King James Version of the Bible. . . If a translation
differs from the standard, clearly it must be wrong. . .
But the fact that the general public does not have access to a
valid norm does not mean that one does not exist. In fact there
is such a norm that is available to anyone who is willing to take
the trouble to learn how to use it: the original Greek New
Testament. . .

By claiming to be a translation, an
English Bible is being put forward as an accurate communication
of the meaning of the original text. . . .The important thing in
judgments of accuracy is that the translators have found English
words and phrases that correspond to the known meaning of the
Greek, and put them together into English sentences that
dutifully follow what the Greek syntax communicates.

Accuracy in Bible translation has nothing to
do with majority votes; it has to do with letting the biblical
authors speak, regardless of where their words might lead. .
.

Chapter 1: The Origins of Modern English Bibles. This
chapter gives a brief history of the New Testament as a written
document and the composition of translation committees.

Chapter 2: The Work of Translation. According to this
chapter, the processes of translation includes "Formal
Equivalence," "Dynamic Equivalence" and "Paraphrase."

Chapter 3: Major English Translations. The translations
used in this chapter include the 1) King James Version
(KJV), 2) New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), 3) New
International Version (NIV), 4) New American Bible
(NAB), 5) New American Standard Bible (NASB), 6)
Amplified Bible (AB), 7) Living Bible (LB), 8)
Today's English Version (TEV), and 9) New World
Translation (NWT)[*] are each categorized by
translation type.

[*] Throughout Truth in
Translation, BeDuhn designates the New World
Translation as NW. However, to maintain uniformity with
other pages on our website, we have altered this to NWT
without further notation.

Chapter 4: Bowing to Bias. This chapter states the
necessity of an accurate definition of Greek words as the
foundation for trustworthy English translation. The Greek word
proskuneo is used as the example. In Jesus' time,
proskuneo meant to prostrate one's self before another of
higher rank or one who might grant a request. (In that context,
the translation is to do obedience.) Therefore, in the
Gospels when individuals are prostrating themselves before Jesus,
the use of the Greek word proskuneo is merely stating that
they were on their knees in supplication. In these examples,
BeDuhn favors the New World Translation's (NWT) use of
"obedience" rather than the more frequently used word
"worship."

On page 42 BeDuhn says,

The verb proskuneo is used fifty-eight
times in the New Testament. When the King James translation was
made, the word picked to best convey the meaning of the Greek
word was "worship." At that time, the English word "worship" had
a range of meaning close to what I have suggested for the Greek
word proskuneo. It could be used for the attitude of
reverence given to God, but also for the act of prostration. The
word was also used as a form of address to people of high status,
in the form "your worship." So the King James translation
committee made a pretty good choice.

But modern English is not King James English,
and the range of the meaning for the word "worship" has narrowed
considerably. Today, we use it only for religious veneration of
God, so it no longer covers all of the uses for the Greek verb
proskuneo, or of the English word in the day of King
James. For this reason, it is necessary that modern translations
find appropriate terms to accurately convey precisely what is
implied by the use of proskuneo in the various passages
where it appears. If they fail to do this, and cling to the old
English word "worship" without acknowledging its shift of meaning
since the days of King James, they mislead their readers into
thinking that every greeting, kiss, or prostration in the Bible
is an act of worship directed to a god. (p. 42)

BeDuhn then gives examples where
proskuneo is used in the Gospels while pleading before man
(Matthew 18:26). These verses are translated in most versions as
"prostrated himself before," "fell on his knees," and "fell down
before." Following these illustrations before man, BeDuhn gives a
list of verses which place the individual before Jesus using the
same word proskuneo. He says,

But in other passages, translations revert to
the KJV's "worship" inappropriately. They do so primarily because
the gesture of prostration is directed to Jesus, and in that
circumstance they translate differently under the pressure of
theological bias. (p. 44)

BeDuhn does not take us to verses in which
"worship" is directed toward "God" because they are not part of
his discussion. However, from his previous comments, we could
assume that he would not find fault with that use of the word
"worship" because it was directed to a god (or God). (We will
come back to this later.)

BeDuhn makes this comment,

Rendering a single Greek word into more than
one English alternative is not necessarily inaccurate in
and of itself. Since Greek words such as proskuneo have a
range of possible meanings, it is not practical to insist that a
Greek word always be translated the same way. . . . But in our
exploration of this issue, we can see how theological bias has
been the determining context for the choices made by all of the
translations except the NAB and NWT. There are passages where
many translators have interpreted the gesture referred to
by the Greek term proskuneo as implying "worship." They
then have substituted that interpretation in place of a
translation.

I am not going to enter into a debate over
interpretation. It is always possible that the interpretation of
the significance of the gesture may be correct. But the
simple translation "prostrate," or "do homage," or "do obeisance"
is certainly correct. So the question is raised, why
depart from a certain, accurate translation to a questionable,
possibly inaccurate one?

The answer is that, when this occurs, the
translators seem to feel the need to add to the New Testament
support for the idea that Jesus was recognized to be God. But the
presence of such an idea cannot be supported by selectively
translating a word one way when it refers to Jesus and another
way when it refers to someone else. . . . They might argue that
the context of belief surrounding Jesus implies that the gesture
is more than "obeisance" or "homage." It's not a very good
argument, because in most of the passages the people who make the
gesture know next to nothing about Jesus, other than that it is
obvious or rumored that he has power to help them. (pp.
47-48)

RESOLVING THE PROSKUNEO PROBLEM

We cannot uniformly translate proskuneo with the
English word worship. Few would disapprove when used
of God. No one would approved when used of man. And,
the opinion would be divided when used of Jesus.

Behind the debate regarding the present-day English word
worship is the notion that the being before whom the
homage is performed is deity. Thus, there is an element of
motive in the present day English word worship.
The one worshiping is doing obeisance while at the
same time expressing recognition of the divine. But we cannot
see motivation unless there is some other observable
act (such as giving praise) which verifies it.

There is an immediate solution to this translation dilemma
raised by motive. Both sides of the theological debate should
always translate the word proskuneo as doing
obeisance. In this way, the word will always be used to
describe an observable physical act. Homage is a true
description whether it is before man, before Jesus or before
God because it describes an observable physical posture
rather than an unseen motive.

The translator must then let the New Testament author
qualify proskuneo with any other word he chooses. If
the description is of individuals around the throne of God,
and they are described as singing praise, we as readers of
that translation will understand that their obeisance
includes adoration. If an individual is doing obeisance
before a magistrate and no other qualification is given, we
as readers might wonder if there is hatred, fear, or other
human emotion, but we at least know that he or she is
kneeling. If an individual is described as doing obeisance
before Jesus, we can let the context determine the necessary
qualification, if there is any. In the process, the
translators will do far less damage to the intent of the
Gospel writer.

In this area, BeDuhn must be taken seriously by those of
us holding to the deity of Jesus. It is entirely
appropriate that we use Scripture to defend our position.
However, our translators must discipline themselves in order
to avoid theological bias. They must translate
proskuneo as obeisance (or an equivalent term)
rather than worship. They cannot selectively use terms
like kneel before to designate man, and worship
to identify Jesus or God.

The NWT has chosen a less biased word in using
obeisance of those kneeling before Jesus. Yet, if they
use worship of those kneeling before God, they have
introduced a theological bias. It is not that we would expect
obedience before God to be anything other than adoration. But
it would mean that the translator editorialized the
translation to imply a difference in status between Jesus and
God which the Gospel writers did not make.[*] BeDuhn himself said, But the
presence of [the idea that Jesus was recognized to be God]
cannot be supported by selectively translating a word one way
when it refers to Jesus and another way when it refers to
someone else. (p. 48)

[*]This
would be especially true considering the writing of John in
both his Gospel and Revelation. John uses proskuneo
in both cases.

However, I believe BeDuhn has stumbled a bit on his own
bias at this point. He has effectively pressed his point that
there is frequent translation bias in Protestant New
Testaments in which proskuneo is translated as
worship when applied to Jesus. Yet he allows an
opposite but equal bias if the same word is translated as
obeisance when applied to Jesus, but worship
when applied to God. Does he show his own bias that it would
be appropriate to translate proskuneo as
worship when speaking of God because he is divine, but
that it would be inappropriate to apply it to Jesus because
he is not? Bias is bias irrespective of which end of the
theological spectrum an individual may be on. Neutrality
demands that proskuneo be translated with no
more—or no less—sense of the divine for either
Jesus or God.

Translating proskuneo as obeisance rather than
worship makes the reading less precise. It adds obscurity. In
fact, it forces the English reader to determine the meaning
of a less precise word just as the original writer forced his
first century Greek readers to grapple with the same lack of
precision. Do you remember BeDuhn's statement earlier in
which he said,

The important thing in judgments of
accuracy is that the translators have found English words and
phrases that correspond to the known meaning of the Greek,
and put them together into English sentences that dutifully
follow what the Greek syntax communicates. . . . Accuracy in
Bible translation has nothing to do with majority votes; it
has to do with letting the biblical authors speak, regardless
of where their words might lead.

If BeDuhn does not require this lack
of precision in the translation of the word proskuneo,
he has abandoned his statement that the Bible authors must be
allowed to speak today.

Chapter 5: Grasping at Accuracy. This chapter evaluates
the difficult Philippians 2:5-11 passage. The teaching point of
this chapter is to show that the choice of English words used to
translate a passage must come from the meaning of the Greek words
within the passage. To do otherwise puts the translator in a
position of interpreting the passage according to a theological
bias.

BeDuhn demonstrates how the meanings of the key
words in this passage are determined from lexical sources. His
appropriate argument is that the meaning of a word must come from
the entire literature of the Koine Greek of the day rather than
being confined to biblical uses of the word.

This chapter will be difficult for those of us
from conservative, evangelical Protestant backgrounds because we
are accustomed to reading Philippians 2:5-11 with our own
theological bias. Nonetheless, it is profitable for us to openly
evaluate what a scholar with BeDuhn's qualifications has to say
regarding the need for the translator to confine the English
translation to the meaning of the words in the Greek text.

Look at the passage in the New World
Translation.

5 Keep this mental attitude in YOU that was also in Christ
Jesus, 6 who, although he was existing in God's form, gave no
consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to
God. 7 No, but he emptied himself and took a slave's form and
came to be in the likeness of men. 8 More than that, when he
found himself in fashion as a man, he humbled himself and
became obedient as far as death, yes, death on a torture stake.
9 For this very reason also God exalted him to a superior
position and kindly gave him the name that is above every
[other] name, 10 so that in the name of Jesus every knee should
bend of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the
ground, 11 and every tongue should openly acknowledge that
Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.
(Philippians 2:5-11 NWT)

We will not spend additional time with this
passage. However, I am including a brief citation which will give
you the tone of BeDuhn's argument and his recognition of the
New World Translation in this verse.

The New World Translation translators,
on the other hand, have understood harpagmos accurately as
grasping at something one does not have, that is, a
seizure. Christ did not even think of grabbing at equality
with God, but instead humbled himself to self-sacrifice. (p.
61)

I am not endorsing the New World
Translation's rendering of these verses, nor am I agreeing
with BeDuhn's evaluation. Nonetheless, I am in full agreement
that the choice of English words must come from the meaning of
the Greek words within the passage. However, I will add nothing
to the debate regarding the word seizure from Philippians
2:6 in the New World Translation. I will have more to say
about the "[other]" addition in verse 9 under the heading
Chapter 7: Probing the Implicit Meaning.

Chapter 6: When is a Man Not a Man? This chapter is
dealing with gender issues. If the reader is not familiar with
this topic, it is one that has been debated frequently in today's
Bible translation field. First century Greek used predominantly
male terminology such as "man" rather than "human." A modern
translator must determine whether or not the translation will use
a current English vocabulary recognizing both men and women or
will adhere literally to the Greek male gender wording.

Chapter 7: Probing the Implicit Meaning. In the
chapter's introduction, the author says, One of the greatest
challenges in any translation is finding the right words in
English to carry all of the meaning of words in the original
language. Since . . . [one word in Greek seldom has an exact
corresponding word in English] translators often find themselves
using several words together to communicate the full meaning of
only one word in the original language of a text. . . . The
problem is what we call the issue of implication, that is, what
is implied in the original Greek, and how much are we responsible
to make what is implied visible and clear to Bible readers.
(p. 75)

As we will see in this chapter, the challenge to
the translator is when to use a simple translation of one word in
English representing the most prominent meaning of the Greek
word, or where to add additional words in English to include a
fuller meaning of the Greek word in the text. In some instances
this is a necessary part of translation. In other passages,
however, it allows an abuse wherein the translator's theological
bias is introduced and interpretation is included in the
translation.

BeDuhn then uses Colossians 1:15-20 to
illustrate the problem of implicit meaning in translation. You
should read the entire chapter from Truth in Translation.
At very best, I will only be able to summarize BeDuhn's main
arguments before adding my own commentary. I must include the
commentary, however, because I believe BeDuhn has again stumbled
against his own biases in this chapter.

I will quote two of the nine translations from
Truth in Translation in their entirety. This will include
the added words which BeDuhn has italicized. Brackets [ ]
are used in the New World Translation to show added
words.

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of
all creation; 16 because by means of him all [other]
things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the
things visible and the things invisible, no matter
whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or
authorities. All [other] things have been created
through him and for him. 17 Also, he is before all
[other] things and by means of him all [other]
things were made to exist, 18 and he is the head of the body,
the congregation. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the
dead, that he might become the one who is first in all
things; 19 because [God] saw good for all
fullness to dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile
again to himself all [other] things by making
peace through the blood [he shed] on the torture stake,
no matter whether they are the things upon the earth or
the things in the heavens. (Colossians 1:15-20, NWT)

15 Christ is the visible likeness of the
invisible God. He is the first-born Son,
superior to all created things. 16 For through him
God created everything in heaven and on earth, the seen
and the unseen things, including spiritual powers,
lords, rulers, and authorities. God created the whole
universe through him and for him. 17 Christ existed
before all things, and in union with him all things have their
proper place. 18 He is the head of his body, the church; he is
the source of the body's life. He is the first-born
Son, who was raised from death, in order that he
alone might have the first place in all things. 19 For it was
by God's own decision that the Son has in himself
the full nature of God. 20 Through the Son,
then, God decided to bring the whole universe
back to himself. God made peace through his Son's
blood on the cross and so brought back to himself all
things, both on earth and in heaven. (Colossians 1:15-20,
TEV)

On pages 83-87, BeDuhn says,

Yet in many public forums on Bible
translation, the practice of these four [we are showing only two
of the four] translations is rarely if ever pointed to or
criticized, while the NWT is attacked for adding the innocuous
other in a way that clearly indicated its character as an
addition of the translators. Why is that so? The reason is that
many readers apparently want the passage to mean what the NIV and
TEV try to make it mean. That is, they don't want to accept the
obvious and clear sense of firstborn of creation as
identifying Jesus as of creation. Other is
obnoxious to them because it draws attention to the fact that
Jesus is of creation and so when Jesus acts with respect
to all things he is actually acting with respect to all
other things. But the NWT is correct. . . .

All is commonly used in Greek as a
hyperbole, that is, an exaggeration. The other is assumed.
In one case, Paul takes the trouble to make this perfectly clear.
In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul catches himself saying that God will
make all things subject to Christ. He stops and clarifies that
"of course" when he says "all things" he doesn't mean that God
himself will be subject to Christ, but all other things
will be, with Christ himself subject to God. There can be no
legitimate objection to other in Colossians 1 because
here, too, Paul clearly does not mean to include God or Christ in
his phrase all things, when God is the implied subject,
and Christ the explicit agent, of the act of creation of these
all things. But since Paul uses all things
appositively (that is, interchangeably) with creation, we
must still reckon with Christ's place as the first-born of
creation, and so the first-born of all things.

It is ironic that the translation of
Colossians 1:15-20 that has received the most criticism is the
one where the added words are fully justified by what is
implied in the Greek. . . .

The decision whether or not to make something
implicit explicit is up to the translators, and cannot be said to
be either right or wrong in itself. Accuracy only
comes into it when assessing whether something made explicit in
the translation really is implied the Greek. If it is, then it is
accurate to make it explicit. In Colossians 1:15-20, it is
accurate to add other because other is implied in
the Greek. (pp. 83-87

Producing complete and readable sentences is
another problem encountered by the translator. Thus, there is a
constant pressure to complete thoughts when they might otherwise
lack sufficient information to do so. This will be particularly
true when the Greek words themselves lack precision or state more
than the English translation would seem to allow. This passage
has several examples.

First, we note the Greek phrase that includes
the word prototokos which is translated firstborn.
Commenting on three translations, BeDuhn says,

In the NIV, the translators have first of all
replaced the of of the phrase firstborn of creation
with over. This qualifies as addition because over
in no way can be derived from the Greek genitive article meaning
of. The NIV translators make this addition on the basis of
doctrine rather than language. Whereas of appears to make
Jesus part of creation, over sets him apart from
it.

Secondly, the NIV adds his to the word
fullness, in this way interpreting the ambiguous reference
in line with a specific belief about Christ's role in the process
being described. The NRSV, likewise, adds the phrase of
God to fullness, for the same purpose. Both
translations are inserting words to lead to the same doctrinal
conclusion that the AB spells out in one of its interpretive
brackets, that "the sum total of the divine perfection, powers,
and attributes" are to be found in Christ. Whether it is true or
not, and whether this is one of the ideas to be found in Paul's
letters or not, it certainly is not present in the original Greek
wording of this passage.

The TEV goes even further than the previously
considered translations in substituting theologically-motivated
interpretation for a valid translation. One of the most
unfortunate things it does is artificially separate phrases in
such a way as to create a whole new meaning not found in the
Greek. "His is the first-born of creation" becomes in the TEV "He
is the first-born Son, superior to all created things." (p.
81-83)

TAKING A CAREFUL LOOK AT COLOSSIANS 1:15-20

I agree with BeDuhn that too many words have been added to
this passage. In many cases, what translators have seen as
necessary implicit words have been biased attempts to make
the passage agree with their own theology. They have resorted
to interpretation rather than mere translation.

Of course, lack of interpretation will sometimes result in
less precision or clarity of the translated English verses.
When appropriate, further explanations can be made in
footnotes. In many cases, however, the best course of action
would be to leave imprecision in the English verses at the
same level as the Greek author left it in the autograph.

Sadly, the suggestion of paragraph 2 above is futile. The
majority of English Bible readers today want a translation
which is easy to read and are happy to have the translator
interpret the ambiguities as long as it does not upset their
theology.

I believe BeDuhn stumbles on his own bias in two issues in
this chapter. The first issue is less certain, but it still
must be mentioned considering the source from which the
information is taken.

There is probably no more comprehensive
definition of Greek words for the English reader than the
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament
(TDNT), edited by Gerhard Kittel. Referring to Volume VI
under the heading prototokos,
prototokea (1968 edition, page 871), TDNT
states in the opening paragraph,

1. prototokos, "firstborn," is rare outside the
Bible and does not occur at all prior to the LXX. Better
attested and earlier (Homer) is the active form
prototokos, "bearing for the first time," of animals
and men.

B. The Word Group in the New Testament." found on
pages 876 to 879, TDNT makes further comments regarding
prototokos.

1. Luke 2:7 says of Mary, "And she gave birth to her
son, the first-born."[*]
This is the only instance in the NT where . . .
prototokos refers unequivocally to the process of
birth, and this in the natural sense. . . . One may
conjecture that the stress on the fact that Jesus was the
firstborn son of His mother is related to the emphatic
reference to the virginity of Mary in 1:27. (p.
876)

5. The description of Christ as "the firstborn of
all creation"[*] in Colossians 1:15 obviously
finds in the "because"[*] clause of verse 16 its
more precise basis and explanation: Christ is the Mediator
at creation to whom all creatures without exception own
their creation. Hence "the firstborn of all
creation"[*] does not simply denote the priority
in time of the pre-existent Lord. If the expression refers
to the mediation of creation though Christ, it cannot be
saying at the same time that He was created as the first
creature. The decisive objection to this view, which sees
in the "of all creation"[*] a partitive
genitive, is that it would demand emphasis on the
"born,"[*] whereas with the exception of Luke
2:7 which refers to literal birth, the "born"[*]
is never emphasized in the New Testament in passages which
speak of Christ, especially Colossians 1:18. A further
point is that this view would bring "born"[*]
into tension with "creation"[*] (and
"created"[*] in 1:16), for creation and birth
are different concepts. . . . The only remaining
possibility is to take prototokos hierarchically. What is
meant is the unique supremacy of Christ over all creatures
as the Mediator of their creation.

[*] Kittle quotes the passage
in Greek. I substituted an English text (or word) from the
New World Translation or the Kingdom Interlinear
Translation.

I introduced this lengthy quotation simply
to show the reader that in the best lexical material
available, the word prototokos (firstborn) may also
refer to supremacy of rank just as it does to
origin in birth. Since that is true, BeDuhn should
include this possibility in his translation criteria. At the
very least, a translator could bias the translation toward
one possibility while acknowledging the second in a
footnote.

The second issue is, I think, quite clear. I believe
BeDuhn has also stumbled on his own bias by allowing the use
of "all [other]" in the NWT Colossians 1 passage. He says
that, "All is commonly used in Greek as a
hyperbole" and that "The 'other' is assumed."
This would be true in many cases as he has given in the
example of "the fig tree and all the trees" from Luke 21:29.
(p. 84) As he points out, since the fig is also a tree, the
second reference must be to all the other trees. But
hyperbole cannot be assumed in all cases. In reading Acts
4:24 we could not rightly exclude anything in heaven, earth
or sea as not being made by the Sovereign Lord. The
same construction is used when the group prayed,
"Sovereign Lord, you are the One who made the heaven and
the earth and the sea and all the things in
them." All of us would object to a reading which said,
"you are the One who made the heaven and the earth and
the sea and all the [other] things in them." as if there
was something which he did not make.

BeDuhn clearly shows his bias when endorsing
the use of "[other]" in Colossians 1. He would be correct
that "[other]" is appropriate if Jesus is a created being.
But he would be incorrect if Jesus is eternal. However, aside
from his reference to the "firstborn" which—as we have
seen above—could be either a statement of origin
or supremecy, Paul does not tell us in this passage if
Jesus is created or eternal.

Therefore, by BeDuhn's guidelines for
unbiased translation, the translator must not include
interpretation into the text. Inserting "[other]" into
the text removes the possibility that Jesus is eternal. It is
therefore unmitigated interpretation rather than translation.
Because Paul did not make this qualification, neither is the
translator at liberty to do so.

Would we expect Paul to qualify this passage
with his own "all other things" if Jesus was not eternal and
the all was to be understood as hyperbole? As we saw
above, BeDuhn says, "In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul catches
himself saying that God will make all things subject to
Christ. He stops and clarifies that "of course" when he says
"all things" he doesn't mean that God himself will be subject
to Christ, but all other things will be, with Christ
himself subject to God." So apparently we could expect
Paul to qualify a statement which had this magnitude of
importance. However, contrary to the pattern 1 Corinthians 15
seems to suggest, BeDuhn uses this as an argument for
permitting "[other]" in Colossians 1.

The same argument applies to the New
World Translation's use of "[other]" in Philippians 2:6
when it says, "For this very reason also God exalted him
to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is
above every [other] name." There are two interpretations
of this passage. One is that Jesus' name is above every name
but Jehovah's. Adding [other] asserts this first
interpretation. The second interpretation is that Jesus was
given the name "Lord" from the Septuagint which Jews
of the day understood to mean Jehovah. Thus, Jesus was
given "the name that is above every name," that is,
Jehovah. Both of these are interpretations,
though in all probability, only one is true. However, the
passage must be translated without using additional words to
bias the translation toward one or the other
interpretation.[*] Thus, the addition of [other]
in this passage biases the translation because it asserts
only one possible interpretation. If the passage as Paul
wrote it is imprecise in regard to these two possible
meanings, it must remain imprecise and not be interpreted for
the English reader.

[*] With the addition of a
single word in brackets, another translation could bias the
interpretation of this verse by reading, "For this very
reason also God exalted him to a superior position and
kindly gave him the name [Jehovah] that is above every
name." The first bias justifies its use of [other] by
claiming that "every" is hyperbole. The second bias
justifies its use of [Jehovah] by acknowledging that
Jehovah is the name "above every name."

As a brief comment, we do see Paul making an interesting
qualification in this passage. Why is Paul so intent in
qualifying the things created? He describes them as being the
"things . . . created in the heavens and upon the earth,
the things visible and the things invisible, no matter
whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or
authorities." It would seem as though Paul wants his
readers to understand that everything was included in
what Jesus created. He not only created the physical
universe, but also the invisible universe, as well as the
entire infrastructure that holds society together. The tone
of the passage does not appear to be exclusive. As
clearly as he can, Paul seems to be saying that Jesus created
everything.

The better course for all English translations would be to
remove the bias from this passage. Evangelical Protestant
translators should certainly remove the terminology which is
not implicit in the text which they use to define Jesus
according to their theology. That would be an important step
toward insuring that their translations were more accurate
(in other words, less biased). Removal of that bias will, of
course, produce a translation of Colossians 1 which describes
the person of Jesus with only the intensity intended by
Paul.

Equally, the New World Translation should remove
its bias of the bracketed [other]. Again, removal of that
bias will produce a translation of Colossians 1 which
describes the person of Jesus with the intensity intended by
Paul.

Chapter 8: Words Together and Apart. This chapter is
dealing with words in the context of a sentence wherein the
meaning is determined by grammar. BeDuhn uses Titus 2:13 to show
meaning differences between translations. Each group of
translators supposedly choose wording which best fits its own
bias.

I will quote the New World Translation
and only three other translations. The distinction in the
examples is whether Jesus and God are the same or different
subjects.

Titus 2:13:

the . . . glorious manifestation of the great God and of
[the] Savior of us, Christ Jesus. (NWT)

the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior,
Christ Jesus. (NASB)

the manifestation of the glory of our great God and
Savior (Or of the great God and our Savior), Jesus Christ.
(NRSV)

when the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ
(or the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ) will
appear. (TEV)

BeDuhn summarizes the chapter by saying,

The NRSV and TEV offer their readers the two
alternatives, and this is the best policy. We have no sure way to
judge which translations correctly understand the verse and which
ones do not. . . . [In reference to other verses he used as
examples in the chapter, he says,] There is no legitimate way to
distinguish the grammar of Titus 2:13 from that of Titus 1:4 and
2 Thessalonians 1:12, just as there is no way to consider 2 Peter
1:1 different in its grammar from 2 Peter 1:2. This is a case
where grammar alone will not settle the matter. All we can do is
suggest by analysis of context and comparable passages, the "more
likely" and "less likely" translations, and leave the question
open for further light. (p. 94)

Chapter 9: An Uncertain Throne. This chapter
demonstrates the uncertainty of translating a Greek sentence
which does not require a verb into an English sentence which
requires the verb. In the case of Hebrews 1:8, the translator's
placement of the verb "is" will change the meaning of the
sentence. BeDuhn says,

In Greek, the verb "is" often is omitted as
unnecessary. There are other elements in a Greek sentence, such
as noun cases, that usually allow the sentence to be understood
even without a simple verb like "is." Since it is implied, it
does not need to be said explicitly. When we translate from Greek
into English, however, we supply the implied verb. . . . The
problem in Hebrew 1:8 is that we are not sure where the verb "is"
belongs in the sentence, and where it belongs makes a big
difference in the meaning of the verse. . . . In Hebrews 1:8, we
have two nouns in the nominative form: "throne" and "God." The
verb "is" might go between the two nouns, as it does in dozens of
cases of saying "x is y" in the New Testament. If that is so,
then the sentence reads: "Your throne is God, forever and ever."
This is the way the sentence is read by the translators of the
NWT. . . .

But there is another possible way to translate
Hebrews 1:8. The phrase ho theos is sometimes used to say
"O God" in Greek. . . . In [Hebrews 10:7], "O God" [was
translated from] ho theos. So it is obvious that the
author of [Hebrews] can use ho theos to mean "O God." At
the same time, the same author uses ho theos dozens of
time to mean "God," the usual meaning of the phrase. These facts
make it very hard for us to know which way to translate this
phrase in Hebrews 1:8. . . . But the translators of most of the
versions we are comparing have chosen the rarer, less probable
way to translate ho theos. By taking it to mean "O God,"
and by putting "is" after the two nouns ("throne" and "God") and
before the prepositional phrase "forever and ever," they read the
verse as, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever." . . . In my
opinion, the NRSV, TEV, and NWT have done the right thing by
informing their readers that there are two ways the verse can and
has been translated. (p. 97-99)

Chapter 10: Tampering with Tenses. John 8:58 uses the
first person of the verb "to be" in its emphatic form. BeDuhn
takes exception to the use of the present tense "I am" in a
majority of these translations. In his opinion, it is not a
grammatical necessity but theological bias which prompts the use
of the present tense. (In an interesting note, he refers to John
9:9 which says, "Others were saying, 'This is he,' still others
were saying, 'No, but he is like him.'" Then the blind man
answered using the same Greek construction for the word "I am."
John says of the blind man, "He kept saying, 'I am the one.'")
BeDuhn believes the LB (Living Bible) has the best translation
with the NWT as next best. The translations he reviews say,

Before Abraham was, I am. (KJV) and
(NRSV)

Before Abraham was born, I am. (NASB)
and (NIV)

Before Abraham was born, I Am.
(TEV)

Before Abraham was born, I AM. (AB)

Before Abraham came to be, I AM.
(NAB)

Before Abraham came into existence, I have
been. (NWT)

I was in existence before Abraham was ever
born! (LB)

Chapter 11: And the Word was . . . What? This chapter
brings us to the great debate between ones of Jehovah's Witnesses
and almost everyone else from those who are less-than-qualified
apologists to well-trained Greek scholars. We are looking at John
1:1. Let me quote the first part of the verse from all of the
translations BeDuhn is citing.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word
was with God, and the Word was God. (KJV) (NASB) (NAB)
(NRSV) (NIV)

In [the] beginning the Word was, and the
Word was with God, and the Word was a god. (NWT)

In the beginning [before all time] was the
Word (Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God
Himself. (AB)

Before the world was created, the Word
already existed; he was with God, and he was the same as
God. (TEV)

Before anything else existed, there was
Christ, with God. He has always been alive and is himself
God. (LB)

I think the best solution in reviewing this
chapter is to let BeDuhn speak for himself, even though it will
be lengthy. He says,

Greek has only a definite article, like our
the; it does not have an indefinite article, like our
a or an. So, generally speaking, a Greek definite
noun will have a form of the definite article (ho), which
will become "the" in English. A Greek indefinite noun will appear
without the definite article, and will be properly rendered in
English with "a" or "an." We are not "adding a word" when we
translate Greek nouns that do not have the definite article as
English nouns with the indefinite article. We are simply obeying
the rules of English grammar that tell us that we cannot say
"Snoopy is dog," but may say "Snoopy is a dog." For example, in
John 1:1c, the clause we are investigating, ho logos is
"the word," as all translations accurately have it. If it was
written simply logos, without the definite article
ho, we would have to translate it as "a word."

Similarly, when we have a form of ho
theos, as we do in John 1:1b and 1:2, we are dealing with a
definite noun that we would initially ("lexically") translate as
"the god"; but if it is written simply theos, as it is in
John 1:1c, it is an indefinite noun that would normally be
translated as "a god." To complete our translation into English,
we need to take into consideration the fact that English has both
a common noun "god" and a proper noun "God." We use the proper
noun "God" like a name, without either a definite or indefinite
article, even though a name is a definite noun. As a definite
noun, "God" corresponds to the Greek ho theos (lexically
"the god"), which also is used often as the proper noun "God" in
both the New Testament and other Greek literature from the same
time. So in John 1:1b and 1:2 it is perfectly accurate to drop
the "the" from "god" and say that the Word was "with God"
(literally "with the god"). But what about the indefinite
theos in John 1:1c? This does not correspond to the
English definite proper noun "God," but to the indefinite noun "a
god."

In Greek, if you leave off the article from
theos in a sentence like the one in John 1:1c, then your
readers will assume you mean "a god."

. . . Having introduced "God" and "the Word,"
John would use the definite article to help his readers keep
track of the fact that he is still talking about the same God and
the same Word. But having mentioned "God" once in 1:1b ("the word
was with God"), John does not use the definite article again with
theos until 1:2 ("this one was with God"), skipping right
over the theos of 1:1c ("the word was a god"). This middle
theos, we are left to conclude, is not exactly the
same thing as the "God" of 1:1b and 1:2.

If John had wanted to say "the Word was God,"
as so many English translation have it, he could have very easily
done so by simply adding the definite article "the" (ho)
to the word "god" (theos), making it "the god" and
therefore "God." (pp. 114-116)

BeDuhn then cites some of the many attempted
explanations, including Colwell's Rule, at length. We will not
attempt to summarize this material. The reader should be aware,
however, that in spite of BeDuhn's objection, there are a large
number of well respected Greek scholars who have defended the
wording "and the Word was God."

However, BeDuhn makes another statement which we
will follow up on later. It is very significant, and I think that
ultimately it helps in resolving the conflict. However, it is not
a new argument. He says,

This brings us back to John 1:1. [John Harner,
in his article, "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark
15:39 and John 1:1," 1973, pp. 85 and 87] suggests that John was
not interested in definiteness or indefiniteness, but in
character and quality.[*] . . .
I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so
prominent that the noun cannot be regarded a definite. . . . So
if the meaning of "the Word was a god," or "the Word was a divine
being" is that the Word belongs to the category of divine beings,
then we could translate the phrase as "the Word was divine." The
meaning is the same in either case, and is summed up well by
Harner as "ho logos...had the nature of theos"
(Harner, page 87). (pp. 123-124)

[*] Harner further states "Perhaps
the clause could be translated, 'the Word had the same nature
as God.' This would be one way of representing John's thought,
which is, as I understand it, that ho logos no less than
ho theos had the nature of theos." (Harner,
Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns:, p. 87)

BeDuhn says more on John 1:1, but I need to
leave that to serious readers who will obtain their own copy of
Truth in Translation. Let me simply close with his summary
paragraph. He says,

Bias has shaped most of these translations
much more than has accurate attention to the wording of the
Bible. The NWT translation of John 1:1 is superior to that of the
other eight translation we are comparing. I do not think it is
the best possible translation for a modern English reader; but at
least it breaks with the KJV tradition followed by all the
others, and it does so in the right direction by paying attention
to how Greek grammar and syntax actually work. No translation of
John 1:1 that I can imagine is going to be perfectly clear and
obvious in its meaning. John is subtle, and we do him no service
by reducing his subtlety to crude simplicities. All that we can
ask is that a translation be an accurate starting point for
exposition and interpretation. Only the NWT achieves this, as
provocative as it sounds to the modern reader. The other
translations cut off the exploration of the verse's meaning
before it has even begun. (p. 133)

REFLECTIONS ON THE JOHN 1:1 DEBATE

I have no expertise which allows me to compare
BeDuhn's thesis against that of other Greek scholars who insist
that the English wording "and the Word was God" is correct So,
for the sake of argument, let's assume that BeDuhn's analysis of
John 1:1 is correct.

He presents a powerful argument declaring the
deity of Jesus. If we will recall, the debate regarding the
nature of Jesus in the early centuries centered on whether or not
He was "of the same substance as the Father." Or, said in another
way, the debate centered on whether Jesus was divine or whether
he was other than divine.

Of course, we understand that when John uses "a
god" in the sense of the English adjective "divine," he is not
using it in the colloquial English sense of "delightful." He is
using it in a sense which restricts it to the Almighty. That was
the sense of the early assertion that Jesus was "of the same
substance" as the Father.

Therefore, a very literal translation of John
1:1 using this English adjective would say,

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word
was with God, and the word was divine.

I agree with BeDuhn that I do not want my
translation interpreted for me. But I would understand the
above translation to be saying,

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word
was with God, and the Word was of the same substance as
God.

Again, for the sake of argument, let's present
the case as though BeDuhn's thesis is the more accurate.

John is powerfully declaring that Jesus has the nature of
God because he uses terminology which identifies Jesus'
qualitative character as that of the Almighty.

We should not resort to bias in any area of our English
translations; we should allow the biblical author to speak
for himself. Let our translators not bias John 1:1 with "and
the Word was God." Let them use the word "divine" (or another
equally descriptive English adjective) to translate John's
written expression to the English reader today.

There should be uniformity in the English language when
this Greek construction[*] is used. Unless there
are other factors to consider (such as the imposter "god" in
2 Thessalonians 2:4), the subjects of each reference must be
given similar rank. In most cases, this may require the use
of footnote explanations.

After we have first corrected our own biased English
translations, then we can expect the New World
Translation translators to correct theirs. According to
what BeDuhn is telling us, the Greek construction kai
theos en ho logos ("and god was the word") means
something substantially different from that which is implied
using the lower case English words "a god." This form does
not suggest the highest rank of divinity in normal English.
By being mechanically literal, the New World
Translation has achieved a biased translation which
substantially reduces the impact of John's statement. As
noted in paragraph 3 above, it is incumbent on the New
World Translation translators to consistently render this
construction in English in a way which similarly identifies
any to whom this Greek form applies.[*] It must be
used to describe the Word in the same way it is used in other
areas of the New Testament to describe the true God.

[*] This construction is found in
these verses: "He is a God, not of the dead, but of the
living." (Mark 12:27 NWT); "He is a God, not of the dead, but
of the living." (Luke 20:38 NWT); "No man has seen God at any
time." (John 1:18 NWT); "God is the One who declares [them]
righteous." (Romans 8:33 NWT); "There is no God but one." (1
Corinthians 8:4 NWT); "The God of all comfort." (2
Corinthians 1:3 NWT); "God is not one to be mocked." (Galatians
6:7 NWT); "For God is the one that, for the sake of [his]good
pleasure, is acting within you." (Philippians 2:13 NWT); and,
"And I shall be his God." (Revelation 21:7 NWT). One verse is
describing a false god; "He is set in opposition and lifts
himself up over everyone who is called "god" or an object of
reverence." (2 Thessalonians 2:4 NWT)

Chapter 12: The Spirit Writ Large. This chapter is
concerned with the way in which the Greek word pneuma
(spirit) is translated into English in the New Testament.

The reader is undoubtedly aware that the written
Greek used in the autographs consisted of only upper case
letters. Thus, the New Testament writers could not use upper case
letters to make a distinction between "Spirit" and "spirit" in
order to identify the subject as a person or an object. To
complicate translation further, the word pneuma has a
number of meanings. It could mean "wind," "breath" or
"life-spirit," "a level of reality," or "spirit creatures." Thus,
each occurrence of the word pneuma in the New Testament
forces the English translators to make choices which require
interpretation.

The word "spirit" in the New Testament is,
therefore, a ready made arena for translation-bias debates.
BeDuhn says,

Later[*] Christian theology also
applied the technical status of a "person" on the Holy Spirit,
which has lead modern translators and readers to think of the
Holy Spirit in human terms as a "who," even a "he," rather than
as an "it" that transcends human measures of personhood.

As a result of these conditions, many modern
translators read the Holy Spirit into passages where it does not
actually appear, verses where "spirit" is used to refer to other
"spiritual" things. At the same time, they confine the Holy
Spirit within human concepts of personhood by altering the
meaning of Greek pronouns from neuter to masculine. The real
danger here is that the Holy Spirit as it is actually found in
the New Testament will be misunderstood and distorted by adding
to it qualities it does not have and attributing to it acts that
the biblical authors actually ascribe to other kinds of
"spirit." (p. 136)

[*] The word "later" is neither
explained nor defended. It is an apparent bias of the author
that the "spirit" in the New Testament does not represent a
divine person.

BeDuhn then analyses a number of biblical
passages from the above perspective. Needless to say, because the
New World Translation avoids any recognition of
"personhood" of the spirit, BeDuhn strongly favors its wording
when translating "spirit" or "holy spirit."

I must simply leave the reader to make his or
her own judgment on this chapter after reading it carefully in
Truth in Translation.

RECOGNITION OF THE "SPIRIT" TRANSLATION PROBLEM

Many readers of Truth in Translation will
feel that BeDuhn has brought a strong personal, theological bias
to this chapter. Yet, he does raise an interesting problem in
translating New Testament Greek into English. The absence of
upper case letters in Greek, and the grammatical necessity of
identifying proper nouns in English with capitals, will force
every English translator to produce a "biased" translation. Yet
it is an entirely unjust accusation to say that a capitalized
"Spirit" is always biased, and a lower case "spirit" is not. It
is more correct to say that anytime the word pneuma occurs
in which a meaning such as "wind," "breath," etc. is not clear,
and in which case the word "spirit" or "Spirit" could be used,
that either translation is equally biased. Bias in
this case is unavoidable for any translation from Greek to
English.

Of course, this does not permit improper
translation of personal pronouns and the like. Nor would it
completely exclude a scheme using only all upper case letters
(SPIRIT) each time the word pneuma occurs. Even with that,
however, one word in upper case letters in a lower case sentence
tends to bias in one direction, whereas all lower case letters
clearly biases in the other.

I must simply leave it at that. Every English
translation will be biased in the translation of the word
pneuma. That is just as true of the New World
Translation as it is of any other translation.

Is there any solution? Maybe. But it is
difficult to read and I am not giving it as a serious suggestion.
I frequently read the English portion of a Greek / English
interlinear New Testament. That translation (the English portion
is, after all, still a translation) has an awkward solution to
this problem. It uses nothing but upper case letters for the
entire text. There is no bias favoring "Spirit" or "spirit."
Romans 12:10-11 reads,

WITH BROTHERLY LOVE TO ONE ANOTHER LOVING
DEARLY, IN HONOR ONE ANOTHER PREFERRING, IN ZEAL NOT LAZY, IN
SPIRIT BURNING, THE LORD SERVING, IN HOPE REJOICING, IN
TRIBULATION ENDURING, IN PRAYER PERSEVERING.

Chapter 13: A Final Word. In his final chapter, BeDuhn
gives a thought provoking analysis of translation bias. He
says,

It is natural, I think, for people to assume
that translations produced by individuals, or by members of a
single religious group, would be more prone to bias than
translations made by large teams of translators representing a
broad spectrum of belief. . . . But our assumptions also have
been challenged. Translations produced by single denominations
can and do defy our expectations of bias. Let's review the
outcome of our investigation. (p. 161)

BeDuhn:In chapter Four, we saw that the NWT and
NAB handle the Greek word proskuneo most consistently,
accurately translating it as "give homage" or "do obeisance"
rather than switching to "worship" when Jesus is the recipient of
the gesture.(p. 161-162)

Comment: The word proskuneo is used of
individuals prostrated before man, before Jesus and before God.
We can excuse any translation for not using "worship" when homage
before man is described. Yet, it is no more, or no less, bias if
that same translation then uses "worship" with either one or both
Jesus and God. It is equally a bias when a translation selects
between Jesus and God to use "homage" (or "obeisance") with one
and "worship" with the other. Thus, the New World
Translation is just as biased as any other translation in its
use of the word "obeisance" in reference to Jesus. In the New
World Translation, the translators have interpreted
proskuneo as though Jesus is not divine but God is. In most
other translations, the translators have interpreted
proskuneo to mean that both Jesus and God are divine. The
only unbiased translation which would be free of interpretation
would use "homage" (or "obeisance") with both Jesus and God and
then let the context interpret the word to the reader. In many of
these passages, the Bible writer described actions which are
consistent with worship, including giving praise and glory. But
that determination should be left to the reader and not be
interpreted by the translator.

BeDuhn:In chapter Five, the NWT was shown to have
the most accurate translation of harpagmos, offering
"seizure" consistent with its handling of other words derived
from the verb harpazo. The NAB and NASB offer the
acceptable "grasp." None of these three translations deviate from
the accurate meaning of morphe ("form"). (p. 162)

BeDuhn:In chapter Six, the NAB and NRSV (with the
TEV as not too far behind) emerged as the most conscientious
translations when it comes to avoiding the inherent male bias of
many. (p. 162)

BeDuhn:In chapter Seven, it could be seen that the
NWT, NAB, KJV, and NASB refrain from adding material to
Colossians 1:15-20 that changes its meaning or interprets its
ambiguities. The other translations, which (along with the NAB)
do not indicate additions to the text in any way, slip
interpretations and glosses into the text. (p. 162)

Comment: We cannot allow BeDuhn to side-step the seven
"[other]" references in this New World Translation passage
as being anything other than unmitigated bias. As BeDuhn infers,
an absence of the word [other] places Jesus outside of creation
(page 84). Since Paul does not qualify his "other" statements,
the translator must not do that for him. To do otherwise is
interpretation. That is particularly true when the passage is
read in context, seeing how forcefully Paul describes Jesus as
the creator of everything. The notion of "[other]" is
contrary to the otherwise all-inclusive tone of the passage when
the New World Translation says, "all [other] things
were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things
visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are
thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other]
things have been created through him and for him." As an
admittedly facetious statement, were the second "[other]"
permissible in the quotation above, Paul would be saying that God
created Jesus and therefore Jesus was God's. But Jesus created
everything else and therefore, everything else belongs solely to
Jesus. In other words, God owns Jesus, but Jesus owns the cosmos
because it was created "for him." I don't think that is what the
New World Bible Translation Committee wanted us to
understand!

BeDuhn:In chapter Eight and Nine, no translation
could be judged inaccurate, since either way of translating the
passages is possible. But the weight of probability in chapter
Nine favored the NWT's way of handling the verse discussed
there. (p. 162)

BeDuhn:In chapter Ten, it was revealed that only
the NWT and LB render the verbal expression ego eimi [I
am] into a coherent part of its larger context in John 8:58,
accurately following the Greek idiom. (p. 162)

BeDuhn:In chapter Eleven, I demonstrated at length
that only the NWT adheres exactly to the literal meaning of the
Greek clause theos en ho logos [god was the word] in John
1:1. The other translations have followed an interpretive
tradition that ignores the nuance in John's choice of
expression. (p. 162)

Comment: If we assume that BeDuhn's statement is true,
we are then confronted with Harner's statement, "that ho
logos no less than ho theos had the nature of
theos." This would change John 1:1 from saying "the Word
was God" to "the Word had the nature of God." Certainly it
changes the wording of the English translation but it makes no
substantive change in the meaning. We also commented that the
New World Translation introduced their own bias by
importing a word-literal Greek sentence structure in "a god" when
this same word-literal form is not translated similarly in
other verses referring to God in the New World
Translation.

BeDuhn:In chapter Twelve, no translation emerged
with a perfectly consistent and accurate handling of the many
uses and nuances of "spirit" and "holy spirit." The NWT scored
highest in using correct impersonal forms of the relative and
demonstrative pronouns consistently with the neuter noun "holy
spirit," and in adhering to the indefinite expression "holy
spirit" in those few instances where it was used by the biblical
authors. (p. 163)

Comment: However, the Greek of the New Testament
autographs used only upper case letters whereas English requires
that a lower case letter be used for a common noun and an upper
case letter be used for a proper noun. It is therefore impossible
for any English translation to entirely avoid bias because either
adding or eliminating the capital "S" on spirit biases the
translation. It cannot be said, therefore, that the New World
Translation is less biased because it does not
capitalize the word "spirit." It merely means that it has chosen
one of two necessary biases for an English translation.

BeDuhn's argument regarding relative and
demonstrative pronouns is considerably stronger in categorizing
the bias of the translations he evaluated.

BeDuhn makes an interesting observation in his
summary of this chapter.

While it is difficult to quantify this sort of
analysis, it can be said that the NWT emerges as the most
accurate of the translations compared. Holding a close second to
the NWT in its accuracy, judging by the passages we have looked
at, is the NAB. Both of these are translations produced by single
denominations of Christianity. . . .

I have pondered why these two translations, of
all those considered, turned out to be the least
biased.[*] I don't know the answer for certain. The
reason might be different in each case. But, at the risk of
greatly oversimplifying things, I think one common element the
two denominations behind these translation share is the freedom
from what I call the Protestant's Burden. . . .

[*] Does BeDuhn assume that Paul
could not have meant what he wrote in Colossians 1:15-20 and
that the addition of "[other]" was the only possible meaning
for an unbiased translation? In addition—as we will see
in discussing the appendix—does he assume that replacing
the word "Lord" to distance 237 passages from Jesus when there
is no ancient New Testament textual support of any kind is not
a translation bias of the highest order?

You see, Protestant forms of Christianity,
following the motto of sola scriptura, insist that all
legitimate Christian beliefs (and practices) must be found in, or
at least based on, the Bible. That's a very clear and admirable
principle. The problem is that Protestant Christianity was not
born in a historical vacuum, and does not go back directly to the
time that the Bible was written. . . .

For the doctrines that Protestantism inherited
to be considered true, they had to be found in the Bible. And
precisely because they were considered true already, there was
and is tremendous pressure to read those truths back into the
Bible, whether or not they are actually there. . . .

Catholicism, while generally committed to the
idea that what the Church believes can be proven by and is
grounded in the Bible, maintains the view that Christian doctrine
was developed, or brought to more precise clarity on key points,
by the work of theologians over time. It is not necessary, from
the Catholic point of view, to find every doctrine or practice
explicitly spelled out in the Bible. . . .

The Jehovah's Witnesses, on the other hand,
are more similar to the Protestant in their view that the Bible
alone must be the source of truth in its every detail. So you
might expect translators from this sect to labor under the
Protestant Burden. But they do not for the simple reason that the
Jehovah's Witness movement was and is a more radical break with
the dominant Christian tradition of the previous millennium than
most kinds of Protestantism. This movement has, unlike the
Protestant Reformation, really sought to re-invent Christianity
from scratch. Whether you regard that as a good or a bad thing,
you can probably understand that it resulted in the Jehovah's
Witnesses approaching the Bible with a kind of innocence, and
building their system of belief and practice from the raw
material of the Bible without predetermining what was to be found
there.[*] (pp. 163 - 165)

[*] See my comments below regarding
the New World Translation's textual apparatus.

For those of us who come from this Protestant
tradition, let's take a break and talk about some of the issues
that we face in translation bias. I think BeDuhn makes a
valuable observation regarding that which has formed our
expectations of our own Bible translations. We do want the
Bible to include verification of everything we believe. There is
nothing wrong with that as long as we put the Bible in first
place and let our theology follow. But we need to be extremely
careful that we do not let our expectation take us beyond what
the Scripture writers actually said. That is true in both the
development of our theology and in our demand for new Bible
translations.

There is an interesting corollary to the above
paragraph. For a number of centuries, the western mind has
searched for "truth" rooted in empirical data. We want to be
"scientific" and base our lives on verifiable information. (In
fact, we compliment ourselves much too highly. In very little of
life do we actually live that way.) Yet, the development of
religious thought within conservative Protestantism strongly
reflects this empirical ideal. We want a chapter-and-verse
foundation for every doctrine. As a result, we have developed
"systematic theology."

Unfortunately for our western frame of mind, the
New Testament authors did not necessarily comply with our desire
for a systematic theology. It is true that Paul gives a fair
amount of "theology" in his writing, but his epistles are much
more than pure theology. They are, after all, personal letters.
More to the point, the Gospel writers (including Acts) frustrates
us most because where we want crisp doctrinal teaching
surrounding the life of Jesus, they are content to give us
narrative.

With our "systematic theology" approach to the
Bible, we have gone to both the Old and New Testaments to "prove"
that Jesus is God and that "holy spirit" is "the Holy Spirit."
This is why we are so reluctant to see BeDuhn challenging the "I
Am" notion of John, or the "firstborn" reference of Colossians 1,
or the "he" and "him" references to the "Spirit" (written, of
course, with a capital "S"). Why did the original writers not
make this clear? Why did the question wait for several hundred
years before the "deity of Jesus" was reduced to a theological
equation?

In other areas of this website I make reference
to a two year study from the
Kingdom Interlinear Translation in which I compared the
714 occurrences of Kurios (Lord) in the New Testament with
their immediate context and, when applicable, with their Old
Testament references. I saw an amazing development. The writers
of the New Testament were irrefutably identifying Jesus in the
New Testament with Jehovah (Yahweh) of the Old Testament. But
they were not doing it with theology. They were doing it with
narrative. They were quoting Old Testament passages which could
be understood only of Jehovah (Yahweh) Himself, and then applying
those same attributes or prerogatives directly to Jesus. The
message was perfectly clear to first century Jews. That same
narrative "proof" was carried directly to the Gentile world with
only a slight amount of "theology" added.

Now we can close the loop. Why was it so
important to the New World Bible Translation Committee that 237
references to "Lord" in the New Testament be changed to
"Jehovah"? It was important because this was the very foundation
on which the first century Christians viewed the person of
Christ.

I strongly disagree with BeDuhn's statement
that, "The Jehovah's Witnesses [approached] the Bible with a
kind of innocence, and [built] their system of belief and
practice from the raw material of the Bible without
predetermining what was to be found there." (p. 165) Their
Christian Greek Scriptures was the first portion
translated. The translation work took place between 1947 and 1949
with a public release in 1950. However, when that edition of the
Christian Greek Scriptures was first released, the entire
system of "J references" and footnotes to the Hebrew versions was
fully intact.[*] There is every indication that the "J
reference" textual apparatus[**] was a necessary
prerequisite for producing the New World Translation Greek
Christian Scriptures. They simply could not translate many of
the 237 verses as "Lord" without verifying the deity of Jesus.
Nathan Knorr, and especially Fredrick Franz, could not have
missed that obstacle to producing their own translation. Their
theology demanded that a majority of these 237 passages read
"Jehovah" rather than "Lord." They could explain-away the wording
of the King James Version they were then using, but they could
not publish their own translation and use wording such as "Lord
God Almighty" in Revelation 11:17.

[*] I assume that the "J
reference" catalog was fully intact because the 237 Jehovah
citations in the 1950 New World Translation exactly
duplicate their publication in the 1969 Kingdom Interlinear
Translation (which combines both the "J references" with
the Westcott and Hort Greek text).

[**] A Textual Apparatus is
the citations for the New Testament Greek text which establish
probability. In certain instances, a given passage will have
alternate wording possibilities from assorted ancient
manuscripts. The textual apparatus will cite alternate wordings
as an aid to the translator in selecting the most probable
word(s) used by the original writer. Hebrew versions are not,
in fact, part of a textual apparatus for the New Testament.
Nonetheless, the "J references" have been incorporated into the
translation of the New World Translation Christian Greek
Scriptures with that weight.

Before I continue, I must warn my readers that
the following paragraphs are pure conjecture on my part. To my
knowledge, aside from Ray Franz's brief account of the
translation process in Crisis of Conscience, there is no
record of the inside events leading up to the publication of the
New World Translation. Therefore, give the following
conjecture no more weight than it merits.

Do not underestimate the importance of the "J
reference" textual apparatus, nor the time it must have taken to
develop it. To begin with, it was a fresh idea. To my knowledge,
the entire system of textual support for "Jehovah" citations in
Hebrew versions had never before been suggested. No matter what
anyone may think of the outcome, developing the "J reference"
tool required the highest caliber of innovative genius. It must
certainly have been the work of Fredrick Franz the recognized
Watch Tower Society intellect of the time. Then, developing the
initial idea into a system of references to thousands of
citations in Hebrew versions required a huge number of man hours
in the days prior to computer searches. Probably no such search
of rare Hebrew versions has ever been undertaken before or since.
Fortunately for the New World Bible Translation Committee, New
York was an ideal place for them to work. But as any new idea, it
was not a simple matter of looking up prescribed verses in Hebrew
Bibles. The idea must have required constant revision as it was
developed. Hence, it simply could not have been done quickly.
Yet, by the time the New World Translation Christian Greek
Scriptures was completed in 1949, the entire "J reference"
textual apparatus was entirely functional. (Though it certainly
may have been edited and perfected prior to its first publication
in the 1969 Kingdom Interlinear Translation. The "J
references" were expanded somewhat for the 1985 Kingdom
Interlinear Translation edition.)

This work all needed to be complete
before the New World Translation of the Christian Greek
Scriptures could be published. On this basis alone, it would
be impossible to maintain that the New World Translation
Christian Greek Scriptures simply emerged as an unbiased
translation from the Greek text.

I leave this chapter with a final
observation:

Irrespective of whether or not we agree with his
examples, I believe BeDuhn has made valuable observations
regarding the need to produce translations of the New Testament
which are as unbiased as possible. Our objective should be to
determine what God actually said in His word. That should be true
even when it will remove the "bias" from our translations which
makes it easier for us to understand our own point of view.
BeDuhn's warning should be taken to heart by all of us who read
the New Testament, Witnesses and non-Witnesses alike.

Appendix: The Use of "Jehovah" in the NWT. Any who
attempt to cite Truth in Translation as vindication of the
New World Translation's freedom of translation bias must
also realize that BeDuhn equally removes the legitimacy of the
New World Translation's claim that the Tetragrammaton was
used in the autographs. As a result, even though Truth in
Translation is an important ally of the New World
Translation regarding translation bias, in this appendix
BeDuhn completely discredits the New World Translation's
most important claim that the name Jehovah has been appropriately
restored in the Christian Scriptures.

I am uncomfortable in quoting so much material
from Truth in Translation in this section. However, I also
do not want to distort what the author has said by eliminating
important statements. Therefore, hopefully with both his and the
readers' understanding, this will give the author the opportunity
to state his argument and avoid taking what he says out of
context.

BeDuhn:Having concluded that the NWT is one of the
most accurate English translations of the New Testament currently
available, I would be remiss if I did not mention one peculiarity
of this translation that by most conventions of translation would
be considered an inaccuracy, however little this inaccuracy
changes the meaning of most of the verses where it appears. I am
referring to the use of "Jehovah" in the NWT New Testament.
"Jehovah" (or "Yahweh" or some other reconstruction of the divine
name consisting of the four consonants YHWH) is the personal name
of God used more than six thousand times in the original Hebrew
of the Old Testament. But the name never appears in any Greek
manuscript of any book of the New Testament. So, to introduce the
name "Jehovah" into the New Testament, as the NWT does
two-hundred-thirty-seven times, is not accurate translation by
the most basic principle of accuracy: adherence to the original
Greek text. (p. 169)

Comment: If it stood alone, I would take great
exception to the statement which says, "I would be remiss if
I did not mention one peculiarity of [the New World Translation],
. . . however little this inaccuracy [of adding "Jehovah" in the
Christian Scriptures] changes the meaning of most of the verses
where it appears." It is my contention that this "one
peculiarity" radically changes the meaning of most verses in
which it occurs. However, the author's sentence must be taken in
the greater context of the Appendix as a whole. At the end of the
Appendix, BeDuhn partially answers my objection in regard to Old
Testament quotations. However, the majority of the 237 Jehovah
citations in the New World Translation Christian Greek
Scriptures do not come from Old Testament quotations. The
majority represent verses such as Revelation 1:8 mentioned above
which juxtapose Jesus with some quality or attribute which can
only be ascribed to Jehovah. In these cases, the alteration most
certainly does change the meaning of the verse in
question.

BeDuhn:Of course, "Jehovah" also appears
throughout the NWT Old Testament. In this case, the NWT is the
only accurate translation of the nine we are comparing, since all
of the other translations replace the personal name of God, in
over six thousand passages, with the euphemistic title "Lord"
(given by many of these translations in all capitals as "LORD" .
. .). YHWH does appear in the original Hebrew of these passages,
and the only accurate translation is one that renders the name
into some pronounceable form. The NWT rightly does this; the
others do not. As a result, the NWT had "Jehovah" consistently in
both its Old and New Testaments, while the other translations
consistently have "Lord" in both their Old and New Testaments.
Both practices violate accuracy in favor of denominationally
preferred expression for God.

This problem arises because the Bible itself
is not consistent in the way all of these translators want it to
be. The Old Testament authors regularly use "Jehovah" as God's
personal name, and the New Testament authors never do so. To
cover over this inconsistency, translators harmonize the
two testaments, that is, they make them read the same even though
originally they do not. To harmonize the Bible is to change one
part to make it match another. This is not a legitimate part of
the translator's task. (p.169-170)

Comment: Thank you Mr. BeDuhn for your clear comments
regarding the error of our Protestant Old Testaments which
substitute LORD for the divine name. Thank you, too, for your
recognition that in this, the Old Testament portion of the New
World Translation is entirely correct, and that the
translators should be commended by all who review the New
World Translation.

BeDuhn:All of the books now contained in the New
Testament were written originally in Greek. Even when the authors
of these books quote the Old Testament, they do so in Greek.
Since "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" is not found in the original Greek
New Testament, even when passages from the Old Testament that
contain YHWH are quoted, it would seem that the New Testament
authors followed the general Jewish custom of not using God's
personal name. Even if these authors were using copies of the
Greek Septuagint that preserved the divine name in archaic Hebrew
letters, they were careful in their own writings to substitute
the accepted euphemism "Lord" (kurios).

This makes perfect sense, since the New
Testament authors were writing works that would be read aloud in
Christian communities. Many of these Christian communities
contained Gentiles as well as Jews, and these Gentiles would be
mystified by the peculiar practices around the name of God. In
the interests of reaching the broadest possible audience with
their message, the New Testament authors use universal titles
such as "God" and "Lord," rather than the specifically Jewish
name for God, which Jews themselves did not want spoken aloud,
anyway. How do I know all this? Because the Greek manuscripts of
the New Testament—all of them—use
kurios, the Greek word for "lord," in every single place
where an Old Testament verse that contains YHWH in the original
Hebrew is quoted.

When all of the manuscript evidence agrees, it
takes very strong reasons to suggest that the original
autographs (the very first manuscript of a book written by
the author himself) read differently. To suggest such a reading
not supported by the manuscript evidence is called making a
conjectural emendation. It is an emendation because
you are repairing, "mending," a text you believe is defective. It
is conjectural because it is a hypothesis, a "conjecture"
that can only be proven if at some future time evidence is found
that supports it. Until that time, it is by definition
unproven.

The editors of the NWT are making a
conjectural emendation when they replace kurios, which
would be translated "Lord," with "Jehovah." In an appendix to the
NWT, they state that their restoration of "Jehovah" in the New
Testament is based upon (1) a supposition concerning how Jesus
and his disciples would have handled the divine name, (2) the
evidence of the "J texts," and (3) the necessity of consistency
between Old and New Testaments. . . .

The first basis for using "Jehovah" is a
matter of theological interpretation. It is an assumption about
how individuals would have acted in accordance with values the
editors believe they held. . . . I might simply note that this
first line of reasoning used by the editors of the NWT provides a
sweeping principle that the name of God was used by the early
Christians; it does not and cannot establish that the name of God
was used in particular verses of the New Testament (since the
editors readily acknowledge that "Lord" appears legitimately in
many passages of the Bible.)

The second basis for using "Jehovah" relies
upon a set of texts that similarly employ a form of "Jehovah" in
particular passages of the New Testament. The NWT cites various
texts of this sort, referred to with a "J" followed by a number.
. . . These "J texts" are mostly . . . Hebrew translations of the
Greek . . . made in the last five centuries for the use of Jewish
converts to Christianity. But the fact that their missionary
translators chose to use the Jewish name for God in some passages
of the New Testament does not constitute any sort of evidence
about the original form of those passages.

What the NWT editors are actually doing in
these notes is citing other translations. . . . This kind
of citation of another translation does not prove
anything; it merely indicates how the choices of the translator
is similar to that made by another translator at some time. . .
.

Since one-hundred-sixty-seven of the
occurrences of "Jehovah" in the NWT New Testament are based
solely upon these "J texts," and the "J texts" offer evidence
only about other translations, not about the original Greek New
Testament, the use of "Jehovah" is not sufficiently justified in
these verses.

The New Testament quotes the Old Testament
quite often, and many of the quoted passages in their original
Hebrew version have the name of God. . . . The editors of the NWT
reason that if the New Testament writers quote the Old Testament
they will, of course, quote it accurately. If the original Hebrew
of the Old Testament passage contains YHWH, an accurate quote of
it would also include that name. So there appears to be a serious
discrepancy between New Testament quotes of the Old Testament and
the original Old Testament sources of those quotes when the
former reads "Lord" while the latter has "Jehovah."

But it is not the job of translators to fix or
correct the content of the biblical text. So when it comes to New
Testament quotes of the Old Testament, we are constrained to
translate what the New Testament author has given. . . . To do
otherwise runs the risk of undoing something important that the
New Testament authors wished to convey by the way they quote the
Old Testament.

In a small number of cases, it seems to be
likely that a New Testament author is consciously changing the
referent of the Old Testament passage from Jehovah . . . to Jesus
Christ. . . . In other words, once an Old Testament passage was
read as referring to "the Lord," rather than specifically
"Jehovah," it was possible to apply what the passage said to
Jesus. . . . With this fact in mind, modern translators must be
careful not to undo the work of the author by "restoring" God's
name in a place where a New Testament author may not intend
it. (pp. 171-173)

BeDuhn concludes the Appendix by citing verses
in which the New World Translation is inconsistent with
its own translation policy. He lists eight verse in this
category, though as the footnote will explain, five of these
verses are not objectionable.

But in five of the verses . . . the NWT has
"God" rather than either "Jehovah" or "Lord" (Romans 11:2; ll:8;
Galatians 1:15; Hebrews 9:20; 1 Peter 4:14). I cannot say why the
NWT editors abandoned their principle of conjectural emendation
in these five cases; it makes no difference in the meaning of the
text.[*] (p. 174)

[*] The New World
Translation was consistent with its translation policy in
these verses. The Westcott and Hort text (which is reproduced
in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation) from which the
New World Translation was made uses theos (God)
rather than kurios (Lord) in each of these
verses.

Then there are three more verses where, by the
principles applied by the NWT editors, "Jehovah" should be used,
and yet is not: 2 Thessalonians 1:9; 1 Peter 2:3; and 1 Peter
3:15. These three passages present a serious problem for the NWT
translators. . . . The fact that they do not, and apparently
cannot, have "Jehovah" in these three passages underscores
the problem with the whole idea of using "Jehovah" in the New
Testament.

[In 2 Thessalonians 1:9] Paul quotes Isaiah
2:21, which includes YHWH in the Hebrew version and "Lord" in the
Septuagint. There is no reason for the NWT not to have "Jehovah"
here according to its own principles. But in the context of 2
Thessalonians 1, Jesus is the primary subject. . . . This may be
an instance of a New Testament author reapplying an Old Testament
passage about YHWH to Jesus because the word "Lord" is ambiguous
in its reference. In such a circumstance, the NWT editors shy
away from using "Jehovah."

Likewise, in 1 Peter 2:3 and 3:15, the NWT
translators have deviated from the principles by which they use
"Jehovah,": and they have done so quite obviously because of
bias. In both passages, by taking advantage of the ambiguity of
the Greek kurios ("Lord"), Peter reapplies to Jesus an Old
Testament statement that was originally about YHWH.

The inconsistency of the NWT translators in
not using "Jehovah" in 2 Thessalonians 1:9, 1 Peter 2:3, and 1
Peter 3:15 shows that interpretation rather than a principle of
translation is involved in deciding where to use "Jehovah." If
the NWT translators stick consistently to using "Jehovah"
whenever an Old Testament passage containing God's name is quoted
in the New Testament, that is a translation principle of a sort
(whether one agrees with it or not). But if in such cases they
sometimes use "Jehovah" and sometimes revert to "Lord," then they
are interpreting the reference of the biblical author. Once we
recognize that interpretation is involved, and see three examples
where this interpretation has led the translators not to use
"Jehovah," we must wonder if they have been correct to use it in
all seventy of those other occurrences. Couldn't there be other
passages among them where, as apparently in 2 Thessalonians 1:9,
1 Peter 2:32, and 1 Peter 3:15, the reference of the verse has
been redirected to Jesus? By moving beyond translation of the
Greek to an interpretation, the translator ventures from the
bedrock of the text to the shifting sands of opinion. (pp.
174-175)

Thank you Mr. BeDuhn for a book which should
cause all of us who read the Bible to raise our expectations
regarding Bible translation. Of course, not all of us will agree
with every illustration you used. But hopefully, as a result of
reading Truth in Translation, we will more knowledgeably
follow the advice "buyer beware" when purchasing our next English
translation.

That leads to the final question, "What kind of
English translation do I want?"

Of course, at times I want to pick up an English
translation which is easy to read. However, for my English
study New Testament, I would like it to include many of
the qualities Mr. BeDuhn described. It would need to be quite
word-literal. Among other things, that would include accurate
English definitions of biblical words. Our English translations
present numerous biases to accommodate vested interests. The word
eklesia is typically translated church because that
connotes an institution which is useful to those wanting to
control. The word should be translated "assembly" in reference to
a gathered group of people. The word baptidzo is
transliterated baptize because that avoids the conundrum
of translating it with its Greek meaning "to immerse." The word
koinania is translated fellowship because we prefer
the fictitious meaning of "social gatherings" to its primary New
Testament meaning of "sharing material goods" with those in need,
or its secondary meaning of "sharing the adversity of another."
And the list could go on and on. So, of course, I favor Mr.
BeDuhn's comment on proskuneo (to worship), though
I would insist that it always be translated as "do
obeisance" or "do homage" and let the context alone interpret
when the New Testament writer is describing "worship," even when
it is homage before God.

When the New Testament writers gave clear
statements without qualification, I want my English translation
to give the same statement without interpretation. That is true
even when that clear statement challenges my personal theology.
On the other hand, when the Greek language of the New Testament
writer was ambiguous, I want my English study translation to give
me the same ambiguity as the autographs gave to their original
readers. The word kurios should always be translated
"Lord." Since the authors could not identify either "Spirit" or
"spirit," I would prefer that my New Testament leave me with the
struggle to determine the intent of the passage even though I
acknowledge that the Holy Spirit is a person.

I would welcome the unbiased New Testament Mr.
BeDuhn is defending in principle. (Though I do not agree with all
of his examples.) I want a New Testament which conveys to me the
same meaning understood by the original readers. My purpose for
reading my Bible is not to reinforce a particular group's biases.
(That is true even when it is the group with which I am most
familiar.) My purpose in reading my Bible is to determine what
God is saying today.

And then reality sets in. In the market driven
economy in which our English Bible publishers operate, my ideal
Bible will never be sold.